Christian street preacher physically attacked by homosexuals (video)

reply to post by markosity1973


Allow me to relate to you on a personal level. I believe in equality for all peoples. I believe that everyone should be free and safe. My religious convictions aside, I believe that people should be able to protest peacfully. I have had gay friends, bi friends, etc. I have done some nice things in my life, and some not so nice things.

Above all, I believe in freedom. The biggest threat to freedom is committing personal prejudice. I am sure any member of the gay community should be able to relate to that. Excusing this sort of behavior regardless of the trials you have been through, is prejudice in it's own right.

I fully support gay civil rights. Last year in my city, a young gentleman was jumped on his way home by a truck full of frat boys because he was considered by them to be effeminate. You can ask my girlfriend (who is an ATS member) how outraged I was.

This has NOTHING to do with gays vs christians in my mind. It has to do with civil liberties and double standards. The same measuring stick could be applied to any belief no matter how repugnant. Either we live in a free country where we are free to speak our minds without being physically assaulted, or we don't.

The fact so many of you are willing to make excuses for a gross violation of those rights speaks volumes about the PC agenda.

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by Superhans

Just because the constitution does not say that it was a hate crime, it does not mean that that was not the intention of the christian group however.

Their intention was to express their opinion, when you attack someone because of their religion that is a hate crime just as if the christian man attacked the gay men for being gay. You are conflating law and morality.

Twisting my words much?

Not twisting your words at all, that is exactly what you said. Can't twist your words to make you right because you are wrong...

Of course it is the same in reverse. But we are now heading into one of those chicken and the egg arguments, i.e who started it.

Not at all, peaceful protester attacked for his views-end of story. Not sure if you get how this protest thing works, people normally don't protest at an area they would get agreement.

So, let me make my view VERY clear so that it cannot be twisted any more.

If a Christian attacks a homosexual for being gay; It's a hate crime

If a homosexual attacks a Christian for being a Christian, it's still a hate crime

yeah, not sure what you are whining about with the twisting words thing, just seems like filler for a poor argument.

If a person who just happens to be Christian attacks a person who happens to be gay and steals their wallet, that is an assault and a theft.

Have I made my point clear yet?

Yes it is clear but you are not right, pretty clear this guy was attacked because of his views.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Read the above, and see if you can spot your error. People should be responsible for their behavior, and not attack those that don't agree with them.

I don't spot an error in what I said. I spot an error in reading comprehension.

Not going to continue this dance over and over again ad nauseum. My feelings on the violence has been made clear enough. If talking about the responsibility of both sides is too much to handle in a discussion that's on you.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Someone dressed in a too-small speedo or some such, with a feather boa and a megaphone, now, would be different. I have seen pics, sadly for me, of some literally obscene outfits and behavior at "gay pride" events. Stuff you can't even link to. Stuff that makes that appallingly NOT Christian bunch, the WBC, look tame.

Wait what?....

Obscene outfits make the WBC look tame?!?

Wow. Alright then. Apparently we see things differently.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Read the above, and see if you can spot your error. People should be responsible for their behavior, and not attack those that don't agree with them.

I don't spot an error in what I said. I spot an error in reading comprehension.

Not going to continue this dance over and over again ad nauseum. My feelings on the violence has been made clear enough. If talking about the responsibility of both sides is too much to handle in a discussion that's on you.

The responsibility is fully on those that had no respect for the free speech rights of others. Period. We don't have to agree with one another to not attack one another. There isn't ANY excuse, and claiming that someone asked for it, while condemning any such attacks the other direction, is the height of hypocrisy. "I don't approve of the attack, BUT..." isn't very convincing, and that's what you and others have done here. No one should be attacked for holding a sign in a public place, no matter what it says. Conversations, sure. Arguments, even, civilly conducted. Physical attacks? NO. No excuses, from anyone. People have a right to peacefully protest in public places. Just because a lot of people don't approve doesn't mean they lose their rights. Isn't that what so many keep claiming about homosexual issues? Why is it different if the person attacked is Christian? We all know it IS different. As has already been pointed out, it's because of the Christianity, because of Christ. We knew this would happen.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Someone dressed in a too-small speedo or some such, with a feather boa and a megaphone, now, would be different. I have seen pics, sadly for me, of some literally obscene outfits and behavior at "gay pride" events. Stuff you can't even link to. Stuff that makes that appallingly NOT Christian bunch, the WBC, look tame.

Wait what?....

Obscene outfits make the WBC look tame?!?

Wow. Alright then. Apparently we see things differently.

When behavior at a "gay pride" event is so bad that anyone else would be arrested for public indecency, exposure, etc, then yes, it makes the WBC idiots look tame. All they do is wave signs and mouth off. They are stupid, and very much NOT Christian, but they are tame compared to what I described. As for that bunch, they are not a real church. It's one extended family, huddled in a compound of houses in a neighborhood. The "members" of the "church" are family, or married in. They are a cult. Not Baptist, and very hate-filled. They really don't like ANYONE that isn't one of them. Anti-gay, anti-military, anti-freedom, anti-American, and on and on.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

"I don't approve of the attack, BUT..." isn't very convincing, and that's what you and others have done here. No one should be attacked for holding a sign in a public place, no matter what it says.

There was never a BUT from me. Again, they are not mutually exclusive. I am NOT condoning the violence. It was wrong. As I stated many times. The fact that discussing the accountability of the "protester" somehow negates my position towards the violence is unfounded and silly.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

When behavior at a "gay pride" event is so bad that anyone else would be arrested for public indecency, exposure, etc, then yes, it makes the WBC idiots look tame.

Someone could strip down naked and run around their neighborhood rubbing jello over their bodies and it wouldn't make a group of people showing up uninvited to a stranger's funeral claiming they deserved to die look tame...... Good grief. Let's keep some perspective here.

As for WBC not being Christian. The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

"I don't approve of the attack, BUT..." isn't very convincing, and that's what you and others have done here. No one should be attacked for holding a sign in a public place, no matter what it says.

There was never a BUT from me. Again, they are not mutually exclusive. I am NOT condoning the violence. It was wrong. I said stated many times. The fact that discussing the accountability of the "protester" somehow negates my position towards the violence is unfounded and silly.

The specific word? No. The intent? Yes. These are your quotes:

However I do agree with some of the members here. Throwing a sign in someones face that says 'you're sinning and you're gonna burn for it' is a sure good way to start a fight. I would say all parties involved made wrong choices.

However, in the spirit of accountability one should know the risk involved in protesting in this "peaceful" way. If you bring a sign that essentially says "you should die" to an event you clearly have no business being at, a friendly response shouldn't be expected. That's what I meant by saying they all made wrong choices. That is not me condoning a "lynching".

The sign holders should be more responsible for their own safety.

IN response to this from another member -

So standing there with a sign is provocation now? And amounts to "pushing peoples buttons"?

you wrote this -

Umm.....yeah. Duh. Potentially. This is situational. Depends on what's written on the sign and the people involved. Of course it can push buttons....

If I showed up to a sports game. A real big game. Went to the other side with the opposing fans and started blurting out how much their team sucked (or held a sign saying this) there is a good chance it could escalate and I could get smacked around.

Those look an awful lot like excuses. Yes, we all should be careful, and take precautions, because it's a crazy, violent world. However, that doesn't excuse the attacks. You did, at least, state that much. Some seem to think the Christians had no right to be there, and they did. As much as anyone. That's my point. If a homosexual went to a park where some large group didn't agree with his choices, waving signs at them, and they attacked him, would you say he was partly to blame? That he should have been more responsible for his safety? If you can say that, cool. At least that would be equal. If anyone can't say that, then I have an issue. From what you post, I think you might agree with me there.

Civil debate, in any case, which is refreshing.

that's halarious. It's amazing how offended people can get. Like what happened to the first amendment! If they don't like them preaching they could just leave, not try and bully them. They take it so personally lol oh brother.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Yes, we all should be careful, and take precautions, because it's a crazy, violent world. However, that doesn't excuse the attacks.

Thank you. I am happy you agree with everything I have thus far said

If a homosexual went to a park where some large group didn't agree with his choices, waving signs at them, and they attacked him, would you say he was partly to blame? That he should have been more responsible for his safety?

See this is where the hang up is. Differentiating between 'blame' and 'responsibility'. Violence is not justified. Period. So I would blame the people attacking the homosexual. There is room here, however, to discuss how intelligent of a decision it was for said homosexual to protest in that manner. That's not excusing anything or condoning the violence.